A coach who says "adios" up front is a blessing in disguise. Actually, by saying there are no scholys available, he/she maybe was being...or was at least attempting to be...diplomatic. Kudos for that anyway.

We didn't get any "no scholarships available" responses, but we did get a "if you are not in the top 50 on TRN we will not recruit you."

Better than the response that "we want to continue to monitor your progress" from coaches who really have no serious interest. And if this is from a coach at a school that the recruit is really interested in, it can hold up the kid's commitment to a decent school that is second or third on the list that would be a really fine choice!

Recruiting is tough business, on both ends. Maybe it's one of the first tests to see if the player.........and, ahem, the player's family.......are up to the pressures and rigors of D1 competition.

It is quite possible that the school gets foreign recruits who are the equivalent of a four-star domestic recruit. There are only 125 four-star recruits each year in the USA, but there are another few hundred at that level overseas. The coach might have determined from experience that domestic four-star recruits do not choose his school. So, he develops contacts overseas who can reliably point him to four-star equivalents in a few countries.

If you really wanted to put in a lot of time on the subject, you could research how this coach's players perform when they play three-star and four-star recruits who went to opposing schools. Then you would know what the level truly is at that school. Given that your daughter is not going there, I am not sure you really want to invest that time.

I followed recommendations of ClarkC and did a very quick unscientific research. It seems there are 2 teams in this conference that recruited American 3&4 stars. These 2 teams consistently lost to all other teams with non-competitive scores and played very close against each other. So I would say that average level of foreigners in this conference is 4-5 stars. Now if there was a quota on foreign players in this conference (say 3-4 players/per team) each team would probably include equal number of foreigners, each team would actively recruit US 4&3 star players and more of them would actually consider these schools. The total number of US players in the conference would increase, teams makeup would become more balanced and the college tennis experience for all players would improve while the overall level of tennis in the conference would drop. But who cares - nobody probably goes pro from this conference. And there would be even a chance that some teams would have to settle for 1-2-stars with potential and even (OMG!) develop them into 3-4-stars. I can even envision a foreign 5-star helping US 2-star teammate improve her tennis skills. This could make the presence of foreign players in US college tennis quite worthwhile.

I followed recommendations of ClarkC and did a very quick unscientific research. It seems there are 2 teams in this conference that recruited American 3&4 stars. These 2 teams consistently lost to all other teams with non-competitive scores and played very close against each other. So I would say that average level of foreigners in this conference is 4-5 stars. Now if there was a quota on foreign players in this conference (say 3-4 players/per team) each team would probably include equal number of foreigners, each team would actively recruit US 4&3 star players and more of them would actually consider these schools. The total number of US players in the conference would increase, teams makeup would become more balanced and the college tennis experience for all players would improve while the overall level of tennis in the conference would drop. But who cares - nobody probably goes pro from this conference. And there would be even a chance that some teams would have to settle for 1-2-stars with potential and even (OMG!) develop them into 3-4-stars. I can even envision a foreign 5-star helping US 2-star teammate improve her tennis skills. This could make the presence of foreign players in US college tennis quite worthwhile.

I followed recommendations of ClarkC and did a very quick unscientific research. It seems there are 2 teams in this conference that recruited American 3&4 stars. These 2 teams consistently lost to all other teams with non-competitive scores and played very close against each other. So I would say that average level of foreigners in this conference is 4-5 stars. Now if there was a quota on foreign players in this conference (say 3-4 players/per team) each team would probably include equal number of foreigners, each team would actively recruit US 4&3 star players and more of them would actually consider these schools. The total number of US players in the conference would increase, teams makeup would become more balanced and the college tennis experience for all players would improve while the overall level of tennis in the conference would drop. But who cares - nobody probably goes pro from this conference. And there would be even a chance that some teams would have to settle for 1-2-stars with potential and even (OMG!) develop them into 3-4-stars. I can even envision a foreign 5-star helping US 2-star teammate improve her tennis skills. This could make the presence of foreign players in US college tennis quite worthwhile.

So, why even keep the conference at the D1 level? In your system, they are going to have a significant talent drop off from the major programs that kids actually want to go to. What is the point of advancing a team to the NCAAs if they have 2 star talent competing against 5 star and blue chip?

Frankly, I don't disagree with the benefits you outline. It sounds great. But, the playing field significantly shifts with these types of restrictions on recruit able athletes.

So, why even keep the conference at the D1 level? In your system, they are going to have a significant talent drop off from the major programs that kids actually want to go to. What is the point of advancing a team to the NCAAs if they have 2 star talent competing against 5 star and blue chip?

Frankly, I don't disagree with the benefits you outline. It sounds great. But, the playing field significantly shifts with these types of restrictions on recruit able athletes.

Actually, there are kids, lots and lots and lots of them, who do want to go to these schools. When you say "major programs that kids actually want to go to" what kids are you referring to ? Academy kids ? Or just the first three pages of TRN(the only ones that matter). I'm sorry, but your world view of tennis players who should be eligible for college scholarships seems artificially constricted to the the first 3 pages of TRN. Screw 3 stars, 2 stars.

Remember, whether these schools are D1 or D2 has nothing to do with the tennis program. The tennis programs irrelevant, it has to do with the football and basketball program(CAVEAT : I HAVE NOW LOST ALL CREDIBILITY BECAUSE I USED THE WORD FOOTBALL). If you go div II, you lose 2 scholarships. What are you going to do, start a beach volleyball team ? BTW, DIV II has their own NCAA's.

These are women's scholarships, created by Title IX, (whether you despise this LAW or not, its the law of the land) to compensate women for the educational opportunities denied to them relative to their male(football and basketball) counterparts. Schools current policies of awarding more than 50% of these women scholarships to internationals has Patsy Mink rolling in her grave. It's a disgrace.

I'm sorry, but your world view of tennis players who should be eligible for college scholarships seems artificially constricted to the the first 3 pages of TRN. Screw 3 stars, 2 stars.

Under your proposal to ban or limit superior tennis players with non-American passports, some parent or sympathizer of a 2-star or 1-star could reasonably say,

I'm sorry, but your world view of tennis players who should be eligible for college scholarships seems artificially constricted to the the first [3] 5 pages of TRN. Screw [3] 2 stars, [2] 1 stars.

Your proposal doesn't solve any problems. It just shifts the universe of players on the cusp in women's collegiate tennis from 3-stars to 2-stars. There always has to be a line and it has to be drawn somewhere. Someone will always be left out. Why not 10 scholys per team? Why not more D1 programs?

You want the D1 tennis line to be drawn at the 2-star level, others on the board have no problem with the 3-star level. That seems to be the gist of it to me

EDIT: By the way, there are, at any given time, about 400 3-stars or better in each graduating class. That's 4 pages on TRN. And there are a total of at least 600 2-stars or better. Six pages! (There are even some 2-stars on the 11th page of the 2013 girls....see TRN FAQ for explanation) Woo-hoo.

Actually, there are kids, lots and lots and lots of them, who do want to go to these schools. When you say "major programs that kids actually want to go to" what kids are you referring to ? Academy kids ? Or just the first three pages of TRN(the only ones that matter). I'm sorry, but your world view of tennis players who should be eligible for college scholarships seems artificially constricted to the the first 3 pages of TRN. Screw 3 stars, 2 stars.

Remember, whether these schools are D1 or D2 has nothing to do with the tennis program. The tennis programs irrelevant, it has to do with the football and basketball program(CAVEAT : I HAVE NOW LOST ALL CREDIBILITY BECAUSE I USED THE WORD FOOTBALL). If you go div II, you lose 2 scholarships. What are you going to do, start a beach volleyball team ? BTW, DIV II has their own NCAA's.

These are women's scholarships, created by Title IX, (whether you despise this LAW or not, its the law of the land) to compensate women for the educational opportunities denied to them relative to their male(football and basketball) counterparts. Schools current policies of awarding more than 50% of these women scholarships to internationals has Patsy Mink rolling in her grave. It's a disgrace.

I know you are not at the recruiting process yet. But, don't get all caught up in the TRN star system, for the coaches it is just a small piece of their analytical process, they know some kids were held back a year, and their 4 star is really a 3 star, they might see your kid play and see potential and they will be speaking to coaches/sectional/tournament director to see what kind of kid your daughter is.....

And yes, totally agree with you and Klu on the rest. One of the best state schools up North has an all foreign team. Never has one of those kids gone on to the pros.

And I lost all respect for Title 9, when Cornell started having men on the women's fencing team as practice partners to satisfy the requirement.
Note to tennis parents of girls - do fencing along with tennis!

So, why even keep the conference at the D1 level? In your system, they are going to have a significant talent drop off from the major programs that kids actually want to go to. What is the point of advancing a team to the NCAAs if they have 2 star talent competing against 5 star and blue chip?

Frankly, I don't disagree with the benefits you outline. It sounds great. But, the playing field significantly shifts with these types of restrictions on recruit able athletes.

And how do these "mid-tier" power houses loaded with 4-5 star foreigners do at NCAA now? They kill everyone in their conference and then lose 4-0 to top teams full of blue chips (domestic and international). 2-star or 4-star - the score will be 4:0 anyway.

And how do these "mid-tier" power houses loaded with 4-5 star foreigners do at NCAA now? They kill everyone in their conference and then lose 4-0 to top teams full of blue chips (domestic and international). 2-star or 4-star - the score will be 4:0 anyway.

So, the correct next step to do is to enact legislation where they will most likely be weaker? I just can't see that being an acceptable method.

To take an example from this years women's tournament, here is how parity is going. Winthrop (Big South champ, 100% foreign) went to the NCAAs and played Duke, the overall 3 seed. They lost 4-0 because after 4 matches are decided, they stop play. Take a look at the box score from the matches halted in progress....http://winthropeagles.com/custompage...ox%20Score.pdf

The #1 was on serve in the second set. And the #6 match was on serve after a 7-5 first set. The rest were pretty much routes. But, at this point Winthrop was able to field a team that pushed two of the stronger players at their position (in the country) on a team that very well could've won the whole thing.

Look at the prep resumes of the Duke players at those positions. Goldfield and Mullholland. 2 and 3 star caliber players can't compete with them.

And your recommendation is for a school like this to take lesser caliber Americans in place of the internationals that are having success?

There are those people on these message boards that are very "pro foreign players in college tennis" and will defend the system as it stands. I would tend to doubt that any of them have kids that are competing for these scholarships. Wrong on the facts and I can prove it. And I guess you cannot conceive that someone might be able to express an opinion because that person thinks it is right, not just because it serves self-interest. (see ClarkC in Foreigners thread)

I have no problem with foreign kids getting an education in the states or even playing tennis on a scholarship...but there should be a limit to this. My daughter has done all the right things....she deserves a shot. That's not the way things work. That is fantasy. Doing all the right things does not = athletic scholarship. Ability (ok, plus some intangibles)= athletic scholarship. I wonder what the source of this belief is

By the way, she was actually born in Central America. So technically, she is a foreigner too. You or your husband are not US citizens? Regardless, I think you are missing the point if you believe that your daughter, with her current tennis credentials, would be welcomed at the Big South school you refer to, if only she did not have an American passport. And this takes into account Title IX. You are a proponent of Title IX? I think it is really difficult, all things considered, to argue that women tennis players in the US don't have a competitive shot at playing college tennis

So, the correct next step to do is to enact legislation where they will most likely be weaker? I just can't see that being an acceptable method.
.......
And your recommendation is for a school like this to take lesser caliber Americans in place of the internationals that are having success?

Enact legislation not for the sole purpose of making them weaker but maybe to save US tennis. And for other reasons stated in my post above. You really need to look 10-15 years forward to see where all this is going. Unless you believe the QS will eventually solve all issues.

Enact legislation not for the sole purpose of making them weaker but maybe to save US tennis. And for other reasons stated in my post above. You really need to look 10-15 years forward to see where all this is going. Unless you believe the QS will eventually solve all issues.

I don't think QS is the end all be all of helping American tennis. It's an effort, and I'm indifferent on the program as a whole. I guess what I would like to see is more efforts to improve the game without dragging the NCAA and its products into it. I'd like Americans to get better, rather than ask the NCAA to lessen its quality so that we as citizens can use it to our advantage. People get better by setting the bar high and reaching for the bar, not by lowering the bar so it is easily reachable.

I think a lot of people are misguided to think that the NCAA is a government controlled organization. It is an independent enterprise that governs itself. The NCAA does not have obligations to US citizens, only to member institutions. That is why this issue bothers me so much. People want the NCAA to change for selfish reasons when the institutions have no incentive to change and support it.

The NCAA is not in charge of "saving" US tennis. That mission is of the USTA and if they are not providing a better path for kids to obtain their goals, that would be an appropriate channel to demand change from. That is why they have national championships, sectional championships, and state & local championships benefitting their members. I would support any USTA rules that only US citizen can participate in USTA membership and it's benefits. That makes sense to me.

Put it this way, if US tennis became so strong that there was a minimal difference between the quality of a 3-star and the quality of a blue chip...this would be a non issue. Coaches would gladly recruit these lower starred players, as theyndo in major sports where the US is the dominant recruiting pool. Unfortunately, there is a drastic difference and that difference gap gets filled by internationals who are able to play at a higher level.

I don't think QS is the end all be all of helping American tennis. It's an effort, and I'm indifferent on the program as a whole. I guess what I would like to see is more efforts to improve the game without dragging the NCAA and its products into it. I'd like Americans to get better, rather than ask the NCAA to lessen its quality so that we as citizens can use it to our advantage. People get better by setting the bar high and reaching for the bar, not by lowering the bar so it is easily reachable.

I think a lot of people are misguided to think that the NCAA is a government controlled organization. It is an independent enterprise that governs itself. The NCAA does not have obligations to US citizens, only to member institutions. That is why this issue bothers me so much. People want the NCAA to change for selfish reasons when the institutions have no incentive to change and support it.

The NCAA is not in charge of "saving" US tennis. That mission is of the USTA and if they are not providing a better path for kids to obtain their goals, that would be an appropriate channel to demand change from. That is why they have national championships, sectional championships, and state & local championships benefitting their members. I would support any USTA rules that only US citizen can participate in USTA membership and it's benefits. That makes sense to me.

Put it this way, if US tennis became so strong that there was a minimal difference between the quality of a 3-star and the quality of a blue chip...this would be a non issue. Coaches would gladly recruit these lower starred players, as theyndo in major sports where the US is the dominant recruiting pool. Unfortunately, there is a drastic difference and that difference gap gets filled by internationals who are able to play at a higher level.

Very informative and well said.

I would like the USTA to exert pressure, lobby the NCAA for a two man/woman cap per team. But this is a pipe dream.
They don't care and it doesn't serve their purpose.

And the USTA they are cutting/chopping/eliminating tournaments like there is no tomorrow. I feel bad for the future tennis players in the next 5 years. The USTA is making it harder for Americans to raise their own bar by taking away the competition. 4 stars and some 5 stars will never leave their sectional in the coming years..... That is ok if you are in Florida or SoCal, but a death wish for the other sections.

I guarantee if you went to Europe there is plenty of cross play.
The new regulations coming up ( which have not been discussed in depth here) will be even limiting that...

And the ITF's - why does such a big country such as the US have so few of them?
So, how are Americans suppose to get better?
USTA cuts our own tournaments here, and the ITFs seem to be over there.

And QS, it is great to bring a whole bunch of kids ( many thousands) into the tennis system. Great because they will grow up and pay dues to the USTA too... But, playing on a little court till your ten (USTA rules!!!!) does not look promising for fielding the next bunch of bluechips. I guess we will see in ten years if we replace all the foreigners with our QS kids.... I am glad I don't have a kid in that experiment.

I would like the USTA to exert pressure, lobby the NCAA for a two man/woman cap per team. But this is a pipe dream.
They don't care and it doesn't serve their purpose.

And the USTA they are cutting/chopping/eliminating tournaments like there is no tomorrow. I feel bad for the future tennis players in the next 5 years. The USTA is making it harder for Americans to raise their own bar by taking away the competition. 4 stars and some 5 stars will never leave their sectional in the coming years..... That is ok if you are in Florida or SoCal, but a death wish for the other sections.

I guarantee if you went to Europe there is plenty of cross play.
The new regulations coming up ( which have not been discussed in depth here) will be even limiting that...

And the ITF's - why does such a big country such as the US have so few of them?
So, how are Americans suppose to get better?
USTA cuts our own tournaments here, and the ITFs seem to be over there.

And QS, it is great to bring a whole bunch of kids ( many thousands) into the tennis system. Great because they will grow up and pay dues to the USTA too... But, playing on a little court till your ten (USTA rules!!!!) does not look promising for fielding the next bunch of bluechips. I guess we will see in ten years if we replace all the foreigners with our QS kids.... I am glad I don't have a kid in that experiment.

Thanks for the polite and courteous reply.

I respect those views on the challenges of US juniors. I don't disagree that they exist. I just don't think it is the NCAAs job to limit opportunities to anyone, nor is it in their best interest. Their role is to provide to the member institutions. I don't hear any University presidents and ADs sounding off about this issue. Those are the folks that have the ability to evoke change. Folks would have to convince them that they have an issue that they don't think exists.

Having gone through the process in the last couple years, and 4-star daughter going to play D1 on scholly next year at the school of her choice, I can offer a little perspective.

Some coaches are terrible communicators. Some did not reply at all to emails, others did so only erratically or ineptly. But then, this information was instructive: who wants to play for a coach who can't communicate well, who can't be bothered to interact?

Some coaches did not seem "ready" to consider recruits more than 12 months out (in contrast to what TRN says). Maybe they were lazy, maybe their grand plan was already in action.

Some coaches do NOT make any effort at all to recruit, or even consider, American-born kids. Others do their American recruiting "first," and fill in with international recruits second. Others start, and stay, strictly American.

This year, it looks to me like most 3-star girls got offers, but maybe not at their first choices, and some schools look suspect academically. I would suggest looking seriously at D3. An academic all-star and excellent tennis player might be more at home as a prize prospect at Johns Hopkins than as a benchwarming walk-on at Vanderbilt (or even Little Rock). I agree with the poster above who suggests that pre-med and D1 varsity athletics won't mix easily. D3 might ease the athletic time commitment and provide as good, or better, academics.

It's good to get advice from someone that has been there. Thanks for the insight.

A coach who says "adios" up front is a blessing in disguise. Actually, by saying there are no scholys available, he/she maybe was being...or was at least attempting to be...diplomatic. Kudos for that anyway.

We didn't get any "no scholarships available" responses, but we did get a "if you are not in the top 50 on TRN we will not recruit you."

Better than the response that "we want to continue to monitor your progress" from coaches who really have no serious interest. And if this is from a coach at a school that the recruit is really interested in, it can hold up the kid's commitment to a decent school that is second or third on the list that would be a really fine choice!

Recruiting is tough business, on both ends. Maybe it's one of the first tests to see if the player.........and, ahem, the player's family.......are up to the pressures and rigors of D1 competition.

I followed recommendations of ClarkC and did a very quick unscientific research. It seems there are 2 teams in this conference that recruited American 3&4 stars. These 2 teams consistently lost to all other teams with non-competitive scores and played very close against each other. So I would say that average level of foreigners in this conference is 4-5 stars. Now if there was a quota on foreign players in this conference (say 3-4 players/per team) each team would probably include equal number of foreigners, each team would actively recruit US 4&3 star players and more of them would actually consider these schools. The total number of US players in the conference would increase, teams makeup would become more balanced and the college tennis experience for all players would improve while the overall level of tennis in the conference would drop. But who cares - nobody probably goes pro from this conference. And there would be even a chance that some teams would have to settle for 1-2-stars with potential and even (OMG!) develop them into 3-4-stars. I can even envision a foreign 5-star helping US 2-star teammate improve her tennis skills. This could make the presence of foreign players in US college tennis quite worthwhile.

Coaches developing talent? This is a revolutionary idea, bordering genius.